No Newspoll this week, which is holding back for the resumption of parliament next week. However, we do have a new Victorian state poll out from ReachTEL, which you can read about in the post directly below this one, along with an update of my poll aggregation from the state. The Guardian should bring us results from Essential Research’s regular fortnightly federal poll overnight tomorrow. Also on the polling front:
• The Fairfax papers have reported state breakdowns aggregated from the last three monthly Ipsos polls, which mix one poll from before the leadership coup, one from the immediate lead-up to it, and one from a month after. This shows Labor leading 52-48 in New South Wales (53-47 in the previous quarter), 56-44 in Victoria (unchanged), 52-48 in Queensland (unchanged) and 51-49 in Western Australia (an unusual 53-47 to the Coalition last time), while the Coalition leads 51-48 in South Australia (52-48 to Labor last time).
• The Guardian reports on another poll in Wentworth, conducted for the Refugee Council of Australia, which I’m going to assume was a ReachTEL although the report doesn’t say. This one is particularly interesting in providing two-party results for Liberal-versus-Phelps as well as Liberal-versus-Labor. This suggests Phelps will win 53-47 if only she can get ahead of Labor. However, the primary votes suggest she has a hurdle to clear, with Dave Sharma (Liberal) on 38.1%, Tim Murray (Labor) on 24.5%, Kerryn Phelps (independent) on 15.9% and others in single digits (there may be an undecided component in the mix of perhaps around 5% or 6% as well). The Liberal-versus-Labor result is consistent with earlier polling in showing it to be extemely close: 50-50 in this case. However, as with the previous polls, this is based on Labor receiving around two-third of preferences from mostly conservative independent candidates, which seems a bit much. The sample for the poll was 870; no field work date is provided. UPDATE: Ben Raue has provided the full numbers. After inclusion of a forced response follow-up for the 4.8% undecided, the primary votes are Sharma 39.9%, Murray 25.0%, Phelps 17.3%, Greens 9.1%, Heath 3.6%. Respondents were also asked how they had voted in 2016, and the responses are fairly well in line with the actual result.
Also on Wentworth, my guide to the by-election has been expanded and updated. Antony Green’s guide offers a particularly useful survey of the how-to-vote card situation that makes use of the term “virtue signalling”. Joe Hildebrand of the Daily Telegraph has taken aim at the Greens for putting Labor ahead of Kerryn Phelps – which, he correctly notes, reduces her chances of overtaking Labor and making the final count, at which she would receive a stronger flow of preferences than Labor and thus stand a better chance of defeating the Liberals. But as Antony Green also rightly notes, “Green voters are a tough flock to herd”.
The thing about fundamentalism is that no one can agree on what their holy book says. For example, Seventh Day Adventists believe that the Sabbath should be observed on Saturday, that many Old Testament laws remain in force and that there is no Hell. Evangelicals have Sunday on Sunday, believe in Hell and can eat pork if they want to. There are numerous interpretations on what the holy book, supposedly the inerrant word of God, is supposed to be commanding.
Surely that would be a pretty strong hint that the Bible is not and was never intended to be a detailed instruction manual. If God had such precise requirements about how and when he should be worshipped, how humans should behave and who they could marry, surely he would have left a clearer set of instructions.
AJM, further to what I just said, if people want to believe the world was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being (called ‘God’ by the great monotheistic traditions), purely as an abstract metaphysical belief, that is fine by me. I only hope they don’t then take that purely metaphysical belief as in any way justifying any particular set of moral or political positions.
C@tmomma @ #284 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 12:37 pm
As, we trust, is his 😻 mother. 😻
Great news ❗
ajm @ #350 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 2:19 pm
That’s approaching the position that forgiveness is understanding (what it is to be human).
Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040
A landmark report from the United Nations’ scientific panel on climate change paints a far more dire picture of the immediate consequences of climate change than previously thought and says that avoiding the damage requires transforming the world economy at a speed and scale that has “no documented historic precedent.”
The report, issued on Monday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders, describes a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs as soon as 2040 — a period well within the lifetime of much of the global population.
MORE : https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html
Michael @ #348 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 1:17 pm
So you wouldn’t permit me to base my political views on the belief that ” There remain these three: faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13.13 if you want to look it up).
Doesn’t look like I’ve missed much while I was out all day.
Boerwar says:
Monday, October 8, 2018 at 12:54 pm.
—————————————
I’m not familiar with whatever it was WWP said in some earlier post. I was just responding to what you said in yours. They were your words I was referring to – you quoted other words from others in your post, but the words I quoted from you weren’t among those you included in your quote marks. Apologies to you if you meant the words of yours I quoted ironically. I took them to be expressing your own thoughts.
IoM @ #242 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 7:54 am
Thanks IoM.
Sounds like a pretty fair position to take.
Jones is being, as usual, a f#ck wit.
If the Opera House had said no to everything then he may have had a point. 🙂
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/08/the-opera-house-debacle-is-neoliberal-hostility-to-the-public-at-work?CMP=share_btn_tw
The world has barely 10 years to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/?utm_term=.8557e7d28c5f
phoenixRED @ #361 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 2:32 pm
Not going to happen unfortunately.
lizzie @ #360 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 2:32 pm
It’s a complete waste of prime residential development land.
Boerwar you didn’t get close to mimicking from the right the post you objected to, you made my point not yours. The post you abused had a list of Republican’s clearly and objectively reinforced the point, your retort was absolutely empty of evidence, examples or well anything of value.
Much more importantly my roses are watered and fertilized I had a good run and making a couple of garden beds less embarrassing if not exactly great again and I got to sit under the shade of a vine and listen to water gargle. All I needed was a naked goddess bathing on a roof in my field of vision and I’d have been living a Leonard Cohen song.
The world has barely 10 years to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say
____
Where’s Craig Kelly when we need him?
Michael @ #352 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 1:21 pm
You have stated well the Deistic view which in my view is an impoverished one.
Very difficult to debate in this forum, but the whole idea of a “clockwork universe” was not really part of earlier concepts of the Cosmos which were based more on cyclical concepts. It was important to the scientific enlightenment who grabbed on to it because it needed the certainty of fixed relationships to make rapid progress using fairy simple reasoning. With the intrusion of relativity and quantum physics it has now been shown to be inadequate to make further progress.
There are great philosophical questions to be resolved I think and I certainly don’t know all the answers. However, we certainly won’t get there by narrow determinism.
ajm says:
Monday, October 8, 2018 at 2:25 pm
So you wouldn’t permit me to base my political views on the belief that ” There remain these three: faith, hope and love, and the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13.13 if you want to look it up).
—————————————
There you go again. “…you wouldn’t permit…”
I am not talking about “permitting” or “not permitting” anything. I am talking about persuading those who base their moral or political views on extremely doubtful metaphysical claims not to do so. This is about rational discussion between individuals, aimed at reducing the influence upon our society of unjustified metaphysical foundations for moral or political beliefs.
If you want to espouse “love” for fellow humans, or “hope” in a future for yourself, humanity and this planet, or “faithfulness” in your ethical dealings with others, I wholeheartedly support you. These things can be shown to be good for human societies, irrespective of one’s belief in a God or otherwise.
What I object to, and would like to convince people to abandon, is the thought that they must accept a set of moral or political beliefs because they have been brought up, or otherwise convinced, by a religious institution to believe there is some particular all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being mandating that set of views.
WeWantPaul @ #364 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 2:35 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW7oNpzBSGc
Alright, so according to the two most fanatical and tribal Labor warriors on this blog, the Greens are wronging Labor by recommending that voters put Labor ahead of a Liberal-leaning Independent.
Very logical.
Their argument seems to be that the Greens should be telling voters that a candidate who is more right-wing than Labor is better than Labor.
The Greens just aren’t as keen on the silly tactical bullshit that the fanatical Labor warriors are into.
The smart and principled thing to do is for people to vote in accordance with their policy views. These Labor fanatics are being moronic.
BK:
[‘Where’s Craig Kelly when we need him?’]
On Sky News. They can’t get enough of him.
The NYT has a look at voter turn out in the US
he Myth of the Lazy Nonvoter
Illustrations by Sophia Foster-Dimino
If history is any indicator, only around 40 percent of eligible voters will vote in the midterm elections. Most people assume that voter turnout remains this low because Americans are apathetic and simply don’t want to vote. But it’s more likely that most Americans do want to vote, and one of the root causes of low turnout is this country’s framework of restrictive voting laws.
To explore the hurdles that voters face this election, we created five voter profiles:
https://outline.com/UuqgWt
Steve777
And it’s not an instruction manual on purpose — in theory, Christians are supposed to work it out for themselves. Christ, for example, did not tell the woman taken in adultery to “Go and don’t sleep with someone who isn’t your husband again” but “Go and sin no more.” It was up to her to decide what she was doing that was sinful.
ajm says:
Monday, October 8, 2018 at 2:37 pm
You have stated well the Deistic view which in my view is an impoverished one.
—————————————
No, I haven’t. The three attributes of a being that I mentioned are among those that Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in all their forms, hold in common to be essential attributes of the concept of ‘God’ that they assert is a being which created everything (except itself).
Anyway, I thought it was clear I was just “stating well” a view that I myself don’t hold, but don’t mind others holding as a metaphysical belief. As long as they don’t use that metaphysical belief as either a crutch to support their own attachment to a set of moral or political beliefs, or as a club with which to beat others into accepting those moral or political beliefs.
adrian (Block)
Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 2:38 pm
Comment #368
Great song -the wonderful Leonard Cohen.
🐘🐘
Michael
No worries.
ajm
“The slave master in this story does not represent God, because that would be totally inconsistent with all the other teaching attributed to Jesus which centres on unconditional love.”
What? The very idea that the teachings ‘attributed to jesus’ are in any way consistent, or rational, is so bizarre that I am truly lost for words.
The words that are ‘attributed to jesus’ were written many tens of years after his supposed death, by unknown writers, in Greek. He, if he existed at all, would have spoken Aramaic. The words you are reading today were translated, from the various Greek dialects they were written in, into Latin, and much, much later, from that language into English. The idea that any of the words ‘attributed to jesus’ were actually spoken by ‘him’ is simply ludicrous. Just absolutely bananas. You know, plain silly.
Do you really think that the verbatim quotes have any validity at all? Seriously? Have you ever played chinese whispers?
‘Nicholas says:
Monday, October 8, 2018 at 2:39 pm
Alright, so according to the two most fanatical and tribal Labor warriors on this blog, the Greens are wronging Labor by recommending that voters put Labor ahead of a Liberal-leaning Independent.
Very logical.
Their argument seems to be that the Greens should be telling voters that a candidate who is more right-wing than Labor is better than Labor.
The Greens just aren’t as keen on the silly tactical bullshit that the fanatical Labor warriors are into.
The smart and principled thing to do is for people to vote in accordance with their policy views. These Labor fanatics are being moronic.’
“smart’ and ‘Greens’ go together like a match and a drum of petrol. I imagine that the Wentworth Greens vote will go down as smarter Greens get the point.
‘WeWantPaul says:
Monday, October 8, 2018 at 2:35 pm
Boerwar you didn’t get close to mimicking from the right the post you objected to, you made my point not yours.’
This sentence (sic) does not parse.
KayJay @ #374 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 2:48 pm
Indeed
Michael @ #367 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 1:38 pm
Totally agree with your last paragraph, as would, at least in practical terms, probably the vast majority of religious believers of all stripes apart from fundamentalists, who are a small minority in all religions I would think. As I said, how arrogant would it be for any believer to say they totally understood the mind of who or what they believe to be God? Surely that would be the greatest heresy.
Institutions cannot escape the fact that they are human creations (although they try to – and not only religious ones – try “the Law”). Often they do great good and sometimes great evil (sometimes at the same time).
A couple of observations
China has a military asset – as does Australia – but it is as a trading Nation that China has lifted its Global presence and the living circumstances of its citizens. Any reduction in the living standards of its citizens is something the Chinese political class can not abide because of any discontent and the festering of any discontent impacting on the political class
They also have the capacity delivered by internal demand
In regards the what I call fringe religious lobby, what stays in my mind is the promotional material around their walls saying “God makes babies”, “God makes the sun come up”, “God makes the grass green” etc etc etc
I can only imagine what their response to the science of climate change may be
Science is not on their radar, obviously and hence shunning the advances of medical science
And we have one of these “believers” as pm – the bothersome, bumptious Borrison
Re Zoomster @2:45PM. that passage is interesting. Jesus did not call for the rigorous literal implementation of the law.
I get the feeling that the types of people who today would be part of the Christian Right would have been there with their own pile of stones.
‘a r says:
Monday, October 8, 2018 at 1:59 pm
Boerwar @ #309 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 12:07 pm
As I pointed out earlier, facts don’t count;
That I can’t accept.
If facts don’t matter and we can’t make them matter, then we might as well all go lie down on the beach and wait to see which idiotic despot decides to launch the nukes first.’
I think you are onto something.
What I should have said is that rage is not only irrelevant but a distraction:
Here is why:
Kavanagh is a Supreme Court Justice.
The World will not address Global Warming within the next ten years.
The GOP just passed another $3 trillion in tax cuts.
However many cases of cancer are caused directly by Round Up, millions more avoid starvation because of Round Up.
Yabba @ #376 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 1:54 pm
Do you apply this sort of dismissive approach to (say) aboriginal indigenous oral tradition?
It’s pretty clear that there were a variety of written and oral records that were eventually incorporated in the canon of Christian belief, often “translated” to be more understandable by particular ethnic or cultural groups.
The Bible isn’t modern “history” because that didn’t even exist two millennia ago but neither is it simply made up as you seem to imply.
Isn’t the problem that the Greens are recommending that people vote for the Greens candidate, but then direct preferences in a way that’s likely to elect the Liberal candidate?
It’s the difference between:
…and:
Aside from ‘Greens’ first and ‘Lib’ last, the only thing that matters about the other preferences is which one is more likely to keep the Lib candidate from ultimately winning.
If the Indie is less bad than the Lib and the Indie has a better chance of beating the Lib in a 2PP matchup than Labor, then it makes sense to put the Indie ahead of Labor. Once you’ve lost on first preferences the game is all about making sure your last preference cannot win.
Ultimately I think it’s moot because people mostly won’t follow the HTV cards anyways. But I can understand why people view the Greens preferences as politically inept in light of the polling that we have available so far.
I’ve learned something new today. Apparently the creator of the universe is into self-regulation when it comes to deciding what constitutes a sin.
So, presumably a brutal mass-murderer who believes what he does is not sinful because it serves a great purpose will go to Heaven, while some poor sod who had a bit of fun sleeping with someone they’re not married to and is wracked by guilt will spend the rest of eternity getting red-hot pokers up the jacksie.
The more I learn about this whole religion thing, the more I’m glad to have avoided it.
adrian (Block)
Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 2:59 pm
Comment #379
As one of my military companions used to say
Good Gear ❗
Funny dude, that’s just about all he ever said.
So, mon ami, Good Gear ❗
Michael @ #373 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 1:45 pm
From a Judeo-Christian point of view, the Genesis creation stories are myths created by primitive peoples to express their understanding as to why things cam to be , rather than how they came to be. So they bind God and the universe together as part of one reality. We tend to interpret them in the light of our modern scientific understanding as a hard historical set of facts.
‘From a Judeo-Christian point of view’
What does that mean?
I am rusted on ALP. If I were in Wentworth I would vote 1 Heath 2 Phelps 3 Murray 4 Greens….16 .Sharma This is not because I don’t wish the ALP to win the by election, but because I believe it to be unlikely. I sincerely prefer Heath to Phelps, but think Phelps is the best hope for a ‘non-Liberal’.
BTW I think that Wentworth is one of the seats where HTV cards would be least decisive in how people voted, specially if you’re voting independent. If you are a pissed-off Lib , you’ll place Lbs ahead of Alp. If you don’t want a Lib ,you’ll place ALp ahead of Libs, whatever Phelps says.
Boerwar @ #389 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 2:19 pm
Means I don’t know enough about the Muslim or any other point of view to comment.
I see all this preferencing shit as largely irrelevant.
Doesn’t the evidence show that major Party voters are more likely to follow preference recommendations whilst with the minor Parties and independents this much less the case.
Often the minors don’t even have How to Vote cards for you to follow.
To me the significant feature around it is the negative impact of Phelps nominating the Liberals, this seems to be adversely effecting those who would not support the Liberals from considering her as an alternate. 🙂
‘ajm says:
Monday, October 8, 2018 at 3:24 pm
Boerwar @ #389 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 2:19 pm
‘From a Judeo-Christian point of view’
What does that mean?
Means I don’t know enough about the Muslim or any other point of view to comment.’
IMO it is one of those catchphrase identifiers linking Israel to the Fundies. It is a clever piece of work, IMO.
If you toss ‘Abrahamic-‘ in instead of ‘Judeo-‘ the geo-political identifiers and hence the political implications are a wee bit different…
John Oliver mocks toilet paper on Trump’s shoe: ‘No one would be surprised if he had a toilet stuck to his shoe’
HBO host John Oliver hilariously mocked President Donald Trump’s awkward moment boarding Air Force One this week while something appeared to be stuck to his shoe.
While it was never clear whether it was toilet paper or a classified document he didn’t care about, Oliver noted it was “on brand” for the Trump’s presidency.
Referring to him as the “mentally unstable man with nuclear weapons who we all love making angry,” Oliver noted it was “completely unsurprising” to see Trump in the predicament.
“At this point, no one would be remotely shocked if Trump boarded Air Force One with an entire toilet stuck to his shoe,” he joked.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/john-oliver-mocks-toilet-paper-trumps-shoe-no-one-surprised-toilet-stuck-shoe/
a r @ #385 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 2:08 pm
The debate about strategic preferencing always leaves me cold. You can’t possibly know how everyone else is going to vote, so just vote your actual preference. Occasionally this might have an unforeseen effect but I suspect on balance it will give the result you prefer.
Same applies to parties HTV preference allocations. The number of half smart decisions in that are that have gone badly astray are legion.
Strategic voting might make more sense in a FPTP system but I suspect even there it would give a sub-optimal result over time.
I have just been looking over my current list of things to get outraged by and there is nothing new so I might go and buy a loaf of bread.
a r says:
Monday, October 8, 2018 at 3:08 pm
“Aside from ‘Greens’ first and ‘Lib’ last, the only thing that matters about the other preferences is which one is more likely to keep the Lib candidate from ultimately winning.”
—————————————
I liked the clarity of most of the rest of this post, but I take issue with the bit I’ve quoted here.
This is far too dismissive of Tim Murray’s chance of winning the seat. More polls have found Murray to be have a higher PV than Phelps than vice versa, and a substantial slice of voters for the smaller candidates would preference Murray over Phelps (probably almost all Greens voters, probably most Heath voters given Clover Moore’s hostility to Phelps). I think it slightly more likely that the final TCP will be Sharma/Murray than Sharma/Phelps.
Anyway, fundamentals suggest that the Lib-Lab TPP in Wentworth, with Turnbull’s personal vote removed and a statewide Lib-Lab TPP of 47.5-52.5, should be in the ballpark of 53-47 in a general election. In a by-election with the existence of the government not immediately at stake, one would expect a 2-3% TPP leakage against the government. This brings Wentworth into lineball 50-50 TPP territory, even without any extra juice being squeezed into the anti-government swing by any particular local anger at MT’s removal. And sure enough, seat-level polls, while not ideal measures of TPP, in this case are lining up with a 50-50 or 51-49 result.
It is way too defeatist for Labor to be thinking they want Phelps to make the final TCP rather than Murray. More Morrison Government legislation can be delayed or defeated between now and next May with Murray than with Phelps in the Parliament, and from a Labor perspective that is a good thing to aim for. And Murray is in with a real shot here, inconvenient thought that might be for Phelps.
Boerwar @ #396 Monday, October 8th, 2018 – 2:30 pm
Sounds like a plan. I might do the same.
Whether it leaves yo cold or otherwise, in Wentworth the preferencing proposition is quite straight forward – provided you think it is important to roll Sharma.
Question says:
Monday, October 8, 2018 at 11:34 am
What surprises me, is that when people describe the electorate of Wentworth, I would expect an above average GRN vote. Is that being gobbled up by all the independents?
At the last general election, the GRN vote in Wentworth was indeed higher than average – 15% vs 10% nationally, 9% in NSW.
But also as our esteemed host has noted, there is a big difference between the Harbour suburbs where there was 10% GRN, versus the more western/southern edges, which was 19% GRN (the GRN candidate is more active in the local council of that part of the electorate too)
The polling to date suggests a fair degree of erosion of the GRN primary to independents, which would be expected as an “alternative to the majors”